Also, Ben Goldacre has next to nothing to do with what goes on in the bad science forums. He barely ever posts, and, by all accounts, doesn't even bother to read them much.

Finally, it seems to me that no-one has actually bothered to read the threads on Bad Science (or if they have, they're only interested in misrepresenting them). Yes, some of the forumers enjoy a bit of verbal rough and tumble, however the main argument from the Bad Science side has not been that CFS is a psychological condition; rather the point has been that the vehement opposition to this explanation of the condition is a trifle bizarre and the vilification of the Wessley character is at best misguided.

Click to expand...

you sir are either an idiot or deluded or both.

Her views are in line with medical experts in the field.

It is you that needs educating.A science degree might help.

Ben Goldacre is a part time junior doctor.It is difficult to see how his views have any relevance as he is hardly an expert in any field let alone disease classification.

Things are rarely what they seem that is why lay people such as yourself have such difficulty in understanding the simplest scientific concepts.

NICE, the department of health, the world health organisation and the CDC of America all reject a psychological model as causative of this illness.

I would suggest that bizzare behaviour and thinking is connected by dismissing the views of these expert bodies in favour of the biased opinion of one psychiatrist.

That in itself suggests severe psychological abnormalities

.Perhaps the inhabitants of the BS forum should consider that they are engaging in projective identification.

If they dont know what that means perhaps they could consult a psychiatrist. I believe that Dr wesselly is a disciple of the psychodynamic paradigm

The question was rhetorical.
But, for the sake of argument....your attempt to slyly point out that it's a loaded question is a bit misguided in any case, seeing as a perfectly reasonable response, which would be permitted by the phrasing of the original question, would have been "none". So it's not loaded.

The question was rhetorical.
But, for the sake of argument....your attempt to slyly point out that it's a loaded question is a bit misguided in any case, seeing as a perfectly reasonable response, which would be permitted by the phrasing of the original question, would have been "none". So it's not loaded.

Her views that cancer can be treated by cutting out dairy and taking massive doses of vitamin C?
I can assure you that there are not very many medical experts at all who share such views.

Dangerous nonsense. I wonder how many people she has killed?

Click to expand...

you seriously think cutting out milk and taking vitamin c kills you OMG.

Lots of people have lactose intolerance and allergies to casein, one of the worst I saw was a baby red raw all over in bleeding eczema, crying all the time, the baby did not test allergic for milk on the NHS tests but when the parents eliminated the dairy the eczema improved enormously

There is something very wrong with the tests on the NHS and the attitude

you seriously think cutting out milk and taking vitamin c kills you OMG.

Click to expand...

No, I think implying (with authority) that this is an alternative to chemotherapy could kill people.

Funny how there was a lot of criticism of the rough'n'tumble nature of the BS forums here, yet when I show up and make a very polite contribution I'm called a deluded idiot that has "severe psychological abnormalities". Oh, well.

No, I think implying (with authority) that this is an alternative to chemotherapy could kill people.

Funny how there was a lot of criticism of the rough'n'tumble nature of the BS forums here, yet when I show up and make a very polite contribution I'm called a deluded idiot that has "severe psychological abnormalities". Oh, well.

Click to expand...

? Myhill was saying a non-dairy diet and taking vitamin C should be used as an alternative to chemotherapy? Are you sure? I had a quick look at her cancer stuff, and really didn't interpret it that way at all. What made you think that was what she was advising?

This isn't true in my case. I learn about "this illness" from the people I know that have it, including someone I've known for over 15 years. She has benefitted from pyschotherapy (psychotherapies that I don't have much time for, but they worked for her), but I don't use that as a basis for believing that all cases of ME/CFS have a pyschological component. I just thought I would mention it.

Although I could learn a bit more from reading this forum, I've decided not to bother because there is far too much prejudice/entrenched belief here (note: I'm not referring to "illness belief").

For example, Gerwyn seems to be obsessed with Freud. I've suffered from a combination of anxiety/OCD (& depression as a consequence, not unlike the depression that ME/CFS suffer from because the illness prevents them from doing/achieving so much) for almost 20 years, but I've never encountered a pyschiatrist that has mentioned Freud. I've encountered a couple of psychodynamic psychotherapists who are Freudians (obviously), but the pyschiatrists are merely medical doctors who treat mental illness using a medical/pharmaceutical model (which works for things like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorders, but is less successful with uni-polar/reactive disorders with more complex causes = off to the psychotherapists, but I prefer humanistic/existential psychotherapists instead of psychodynamic ones because I [being polite] don't have much time for Freud). What's with the charicature of psychiatry, Gerwyn?

I came on here to try and persuade people that the Bad Science forum isn't full of monsters; we just don't think licensed doctors should be publishing unscientific crap on their websites. No more, no less.

As for the thing that Min quoted about "trolling the f*** out of those stupid fU***** on the phoenix rising forums!"...

I think that was supposed to be a joke too, touchingcloth never came over here and started doing that and, as prion said:

It was a silly thing to say. I can't apologise for things other people have said (I'm not Jesus), but I wish they hadn't said it.

None of the Bad Science people posting here are trolls. Some of you need to stop assuming the worst.

Click to expand...

wesselly uses Freudian concepts all the time neurasthenia and somatoform disorder to name but two. Drs are either physicians ,surgeons or psychiatrists.i understand that psychiatrists desperately want to relabel themselves as physicians or at least some of them do.physicians generally dont invent illnesses or put their own prejudices above the interests of their patients.Physicians adopt a consensus approach.The world consensus on ME is that it is an illness which is more debilitating ythan MS and psychological causation has been rejected.Anyone who puts his owm view above experts in the field is by definition no physician.Finally a member of the BS forum in general and certain psychiatrists in particularcan hardly complain of charicature as they engage in nothing but charicature and wilful misrepresentation.

P.S psychiatrists use no expanatory models ar all unless chemical imbalance counts as a theory now.this is in itself contrary to the evidence produced by neuroscientists.Now ignoring scientific evidence that is bizzare.Psychiatrists categorize and prescribe drugs period!

PPS you seem quite happy for wessley to publish unscientific crap. Is he not a licensed doctor?

? Myhill was saying a non-dairy diet and taking vitamin C should be used as an alternative to chemotherapy? Are you sure? I had a quick look at her cancer stuff, and really didn't interpret it that way at all. What made you think that was what she was advising?

Click to expand...

It's implicit. She doesn't have to explicitly say so. She is a doctor, she has medical authority by virtue of this fact, and she lists several completely ineffective "treatments" for cancer on her website, mostly based on speculation and baseless extrapolations from misunderstandings and half-truths about oncology. It's very credible that, after being exposed to her nonsense, some people will opt for such treatment over chemotherapy, which is undoubtedly very unpleasant.
A close family member of mine died of colorectal cancer after withdrawing from conventional treatment and attempting to treat himself with green tea and vitamin supplements. It's not a nice way to go.

you seriously think cutting out milk and taking vitamin c kills you OMG.

Lots of people have lactose intolerance and allergies to casein, one of the worst I saw was a baby red raw all over in bleeding eczema, crying all the time, the baby did not test allergic for milk on the NHS tests but when the parents eliminated the dairy the eczema improved enormously

There is something very wrong with the tests on the NHS and the attitude

It's implicit. She doesn't have to explicitly say so. She is a doctor, she has medical authority by virtue of this fact, and she lists several completely ineffective "treatments" for cancer on her website, mostly based on speculation and baseless extrapolations from misunderstandings and half-truths about oncology. It's very credible that, after being exposed to her nonsense, some people will opt for such treatment over chemotherapy, which is undoubtedly very unpleasant.
A close family member of mine died of colorectal cancer after withdrawing from conventional treatment and attempting to treat himself with green tea and vitamin supplements. It's not a nice way to go.

Click to expand...

So what you meant to say is:

"Dr Myhill says that adopting a dairy free diet and taking vitamin C would be useful for cancer patients. Some cancer patients might therefore decide to not have chemotherapy. I wonder how many people Myhill has killed in this way?"

I don't think that's a really good argument.

I expect you could well have been attacked unfairly here (you should see some of the stuff I get!), but this just isn't sensible. If a doctor advised cancer patients to eat lots of tomatoes, would that be putting their lives at risk too?

"Dr Myhill says that adopting a dairy free diet and taking vitamin C would be useful for cancer patients. Some cancer patients might therefore decide to not have chemotherapy. I wonder how many people Myhill has killed in this way?"

I don't think that's a really good argument.

I expect you could well have been attacked unfairly here (you should see some of the stuff I get!), but this just isn't sensible. If a doctor advised cancer patients to eat lots of tomatoes, would that be putting their lives at risk too?

Click to expand...

If they were advising that eating lots of tomatoes would help "treat" the cancer, then yes, they would be peddling dangerous nonsense.

No, I think implying (with authority) that this is an alternative to chemotherapy could kill people.

Funny how there was a lot of criticism of the rough'n'tumble nature of the BS forums here, yet when I show up and make a very polite contribution I'm called a deluded idiot that has "severe psychological abnormalities". Oh, well.

Click to expand...

You behaved and spoke like an ignorant ill informed idiot so I was using an appropiate adjective Your comments about Dr Myhills treatments are inaccurate.In no way does she even suggest her suppliments and dietary changes as an alternative to chemotherapy but to help with the adverse effects of chemotherapy and generally to reduce risk of reoccurance or de novo occurance. this is perfectly in line with medical thinking.If you cant understand clearly stated english then you are either an idiot or being willfully disingenuous.Which is it?

If they were advising that eating lots of tomatoes would help "treat" the cancer, then yes, they would be peddling dangerous nonsense.

Click to expand...

What about if they just said it would help patients recover from cancer? or help patients fight cancer? Do you have access to the quote from Myhill which you thought was putting patients lives at risk?

It's implicit. She doesn't have to explicitly say so. She is a doctor, she has medical authority by virtue of this fact, and she lists several completely ineffective "treatments" for cancer on her website, mostly based on speculation and baseless extrapolations from misunderstandings and half-truths about oncology. It's very credible that, after being exposed to her nonsense, some people will opt for such treatment over chemotherapy, which is undoubtedly very unpleasant.
A close family member of mine died of colorectal cancer after withdrawing from conventional treatment and attempting to treat himself with green tea and vitamin supplements. It's not a nice way to go.

Click to expand...

why did he withdraw from conventional treatment? I dont think you are medically qualified Thus you are in no position to assess the medical content of Dr myhills website.You are the one engaging in,ill informed,speculation and extrapolation.You also seem to under the delusion that your opinion is fact.That is the sort of psychological abnormality i referred to earlier.

It's implicit. She doesn't have to explicitly say so. She is a doctor, she has medical authority by virtue of this fact, and she lists several completely ineffective "treatments" for cancer on her website, mostly based on speculation and baseless extrapolations from misunderstandings and half-truths about oncology. It's very credible that, after being exposed to her nonsense, some people will opt for such treatment over chemotherapy, which is undoubtedly very unpleasant.
A close family member of mine died of colorectal cancer after withdrawing from conventional treatment and attempting to treat himself with green tea and vitamin supplements. It's not a nice way to go.

Click to expand...

But what it sound like you are saying is that people should not have the right to choose what is right for them, some people say they have got better of cancer from environmental medicine, I know someone who did , cancer has stages so if you are in the fourth stage by the time you convert it is usually too late whatever you do

There are hundreds of doctors around the world that have moved toward and integrated nutritional and environmental medicine because they believe it is effective, no one is forced to go to a doctor who practises enviroenmental medicine , but People should have the right to choose what is right for them

what is best is integrative medicine and make the best of both

For every doctor you get rid of that practises environmental medicine another 2 or 3 will take her place so what is the point

Doctors in the US don't get struck off for practising environmental medicine

anyway her main area that she is very successful is in treating CFS

I also know she saved several patients lives that were mis diagnosed by the NHS ie a patient who had addison's disease